-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Can't get the right logical plan after optimizer #3421
Comments
Thanks, @liukun4515. I will look at this today or over the weekend |
|
related issue #3289 |
This issue exists in DataFusion 11.0.0. I don't think adding the new TypeCoercion rule introduced any regression here.
|
If there is no regression I agree this issue shouldn't hold up the release (we can fix it as part of the next release) |
Because in the 11.0.0, the type coercion is in the physical phase, in the logical phase we don't do type coercion. But after the migration type coercion from physical phase to logical phase, we will get a different expr between the |
Instead of reordering the rules, I think type coercion should be applied to the |
agree, but i have checked the I'am also confused why the |
I find the code below:
The filter expr is not belong to the table scan cc @andygrove @alamb |
Seems that is a bug in |
I can try it in follow-up pr. In this pr #3459, I just change the position of the |
Describe the bug
After the type coercion moved to logical optimizer.
The order of optimizer rule is the
filter_push_down
is before theTypeCoercion
, but we can't get the right logical planFor example
The
partial_filters
was not casted to the right type, it will break the pruning for the parquet.Why we assign this order for the optimizer rule?
@andygrove
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Expected behavior
A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.
Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: